The blurb is that Dr. James Lind discovered the cure and prevention of scurvy in 1747 by conducting the first controlled clinical trial in the annals of medicine. In spite of his heroic efforts, It took about 50 years for this to finally sink into the medical bureaucracy of the British navy, when the scourge was finally vanquished.
Well, the truth is a little more complex than that, and contains some pertinent lessons for our own time. The trial involved only 12 men divided into 6 groups, two of whom got two oranges and a lemon while the others got various other remedies of current interest, including dilute sulfuric acid. The fruit receivers got better, and the others did not. This was the only real trial during the several centuries of extended sea voyages, and was not enough evidence to overcome the objections of amateur observers, anecdotal reports, quacks with their own pixie dust to sell, and the opinions of the committees of the connected. Truth be told, the modest Scot did not really push the method for study hard enough, and complicated his message with speculation and caveats. He was unable to harness the commercial motives of the right people to finally triumph in his own lifetime. Even as late as our own Civil War, and in the concentration camps of the Boer War, tens of thousands continued to perish of scurvy.
Interestingly, one of the reasons for the failure, traced by the author, is the confusion of the terminology of the day, when "lemon" and "lime" were terms used inconsistently and interchangeably, while their anti-scorbutic powers differed significantly. One can easily sneer at the ignorance of the those times, but be startled to realize that the same sort of problem exists today in the multi-billion dollar controversy over asbestos, in which two sorts of minerals, comprising six distinct minerals with distinct chemical structures are all lumped together under the same term: asbestos. Journalists and dwellers in the bowels of the EPA and OSHA are as indifferent to the distinction and the evidence for a great difference in the dangers inherent in each of them, as any committee of the Admiralty of Lind's day.
As far as the inadequacy of Lind's clinical trial, these problems of methodology have hardly gone away. Spend a few hours researching the clinical data on the important problem of second hand cigarette smoke, and tremble before the power of the mass media and the disregard of the uplifters for real scientific data.
Harvey has chronicled the complexities of the discovery well, and his tale serves as a cautionary lesson for those interested in how the truth may finally come to prevail, even in our own time of a plethora of shoddy science, bureaucratic safety committees, and dishonest journalism.